It is easy to dismiss Sarah Palin—and there seems to be an increasing tendency to do so. But it is, I think, a mistake. Sarah Palin represents many things that need to be taken seriously: gender, class, urbanization, and religion to name just a few.

One would think that Palin’s gender would be clear. She is, after all, a woman. But her meteoric rise onto the national stage makes it very clear just how problematic that is. She is most emphatically not a woman like Hillary Rodham Clinton. Many women, who have endured unending criticism of Hillary Clinton for years are now puzzled by the criticism Palin receives. Clinton was too strong, too involved in policy, too loyal to her straying husband, too irreligious, not maternal enough, not feminine enough. Palin is now being criticized for being too feminine, too maternal, too religious, for having a husband who is too loyal, and for not knowing enough about policy. Women may wonder just what profile a woman need in order to be acceptable. It is not unreasonable to conclude that no such profile exists. And it is not unreasonable for many women to resent this.

Palin also brings to light some clear class biases in our national politics. Americans, it seems, love the log cabin myth—the idea that anyone can grow up to be president. But we only rarely elect those who actually come from anything approaching poverty. We prefer our presidents to appear like “common men” but also to evoke uncommon intelligence and polish. Palin is unabashedly not of the elite. And she has been accused of being “too Wal-Mart,” with all the class-loaded animus that term implies. Other Wal-Mart shoppers might well find reason to side with someone thus stigmatized.

Finally, Palin represents the rural voter in ways urbanites like myself just don’t get. She speaks to a rural culture that is both romanticized and often despised in our national politics.

This combination of geography, class, and gender may do much to explain the reaction of many women—and men—to her nomination, and the enthusiastic crowds of that greet her public appearances.

I don’t get Sarah Palin. But Bill Clinton does. Her small town ethos, comfort with hunting culture, and spirited defense of what can appear to urbanites as an increasingly anachronistic life speaks powerfully to those who continue to live in rural areas. And those people vote. Clinton’s respect for Palin hits exactly the right note, as this AP story on Clinton reports:

Speaking to reporters before his Clinton Global Initiative meeting, the former president described Palin’s appeal by adding, “People look at her, and they say, ‘All those kids. Something that happens in everybody’s family. I’m glad she loves her daughter and she’s not ashamed of her. Glad that girl’s going around with her boyfriend. Glad they’re going to get married’”…

Clinton said voters would think, “I like that little Down syndrome kid. One of them lives down the street. They’re wonderful children. They’re wonderful people….

“I get this,” Clinton said. “My view is … why say, ever, anything bad about a person? Why don’t we like them and celebrate them and be happy for her elevation to the ticket? And just say that she was a good choice for him and we disagree with them?”

So he “gets” her, even admires both Palin and her husband. But he disagrees with her. In this, he offers an example for the Democrats to follow: disagree with her, but don’t disrespect her. And take the divisions our national reactions to her indicate very seriously indeed.